Proposal: Disconnect comp.lang.python from python-list

[Richard Damon]

On 5/6/21 9:44 AM, Jon Ribbens via Python-list wrote:
> On 2021-05-06, Richard Damon <Richard at Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>> On 5/6/21 6:12 AM, Jon Ribbens via Python-list wrote:
>>> I think you're fundamentally missing the point that the newsgroup is
>>> *already gatewayed to the mailing list*. Marking the group moderated
>>> will not result in any more work for the moderators. In fact what you
>>> say above is the opposite of the truth, as it will result in the link
>>> between the poster and the moderators becoming more direct, not less
>>> direct.
>> It will.
> How? How would switching from a bi-directional gateway to a moderated
> group make any more work for anyone than the existing bi-directional
> gateway to an unmoderated group?
>
>> First, python-list at python.org is NOT a "Moderated" mailing list by the
>> standard definition of such. Maybe you could call it Moderatable, but
>> most messages make it to the list without any intervention by a
>> moderator.
> Sounds like nearly all moderated lists/forums then.

Then perhaps you have never been on a real Moderated mailing list or
Forum. Lists/Forum when described as moderated normally means that a
human eyeball looks at EVERY (or almost every) message before it goes
public.

>> The Mailman software that runs the list allows the administrators of
>> the list to put select filters on posts, or to make certain posters
>> moderated and need their posts reviewed, but most posts go through
>> automatically and immediately. This works because the SMTP Email
>> system have a must better presumption of the From address in the
>> message actually being who the sender is then under NNTP rules.
> The SMTP mail system makes no such assumption whatsoever.

Maybe not be the absolute letter of the rules, but it does in practice.
Especially if a person intends for their messages to be able to be
delivered to most mail servers. At the very least, the email envelope
will have an apparently valid email address, or most email systems will
refuse it. Protocols like SPF will verify that the message does come
from who it says, or at least there is a responsible party that will
deal with things, or that whole domain get put into block lists. Email
from 'known senders' tends to be reliably marked, and you need to
subscribe to the list and become a 'known sender'. Once you have gone
through the NNTP gateway, you lose all of that.

>> Forging it is detectable in many cases and generally a violation of
>> the TOS for most providers (and the ones that don't can easily be
>> blocked).
> Sounds a lot like Usenet then.
Many Usenet providers do NOT require users to use valid email address as
their From (You can't subscribe such an address to the mailing list to
be able to post from it). They might prohibit explicitly forging someone
else's email address, but Nym Shifiting is common and accepted on Usenet
(SOME providers might limit it, but not all)
>> While you could setup a robo-moderator to do a similar thing, Usenet
>> posters will not have 'pre-subscribed' before posting, and the From
>> address is no where near as relaible as invalid From addresses ARE
>> allowed, and since the message comes via a NNTP injection source relay,
>> non-verifiable. This make the job a LOT harder.
> It makes essentially no difference at all.
It sure does. Have you every actually TRIED to run a moderated Usenet
group, or know anyone who has, especially a somewhat busy group?
>> The current setup does put rules at the gateway that controls what gets
>> onto the mailing list, and because it IS a gateway, there are easier
>> grounds to establish that some posts just won't be gated over from
>> usenet to the mailing list. Putting those same limits onto the moderated
>> group itself would be against Usenet norms. This would mean that the
>> Usenet moderation queue WILL require significant additional work over
>> what is currently being done for the mailing list.
> Could you explain what on earth you are on about here please?

I am presuming that the current gateway isn't bringing all the messages
from Usenet into the mailing list. This is obvious as we don't see the
noise here. The Cabal that runs the 'Big-8' doesn't really care what
sort of filters are added at such a gateway.

To setup a moderated group that defines similar filters in place for
messages getting to Usenet, particularly for a group intended to replace
a 'reasonably' working unmoderated group, is likely not going to be
viewed well. In the old days of actual voting for new groups, just
saying you intended to do such got you a lot of negative votes. Not
sayng you are going to do it, and then doing it, might get the Big-8

>
>> If the idea is just to provide a NNTP accessible version of the mailing
>> list, than perhaps rather than a comp.* group, putting it on gmane would
>> be a viable option, that avoids some of the Usenet issues.
> How would that make any difference?

gmane is not Usenet. If you just want NNTP access, but not the problems
of general Usenet, it is an alternative.

-- 
Richard Damon